civilizationfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Rearrangement of categories
Category:Naming conventions An idea for a rearrangement of categories Proposed changes :'' "rename" means to recategorize articles into the latter and delete the former. :'' "into" means to categorize the former into the latter. :'' strikethrough means to delete the category and change the contents. : Bolded has been completed already (though some undone) Still requiring comments :These are sections that don't yet have some kind of consensus. Though anything can be commented on. *cities categories *units *civ (original) *Guides *Comments_-_Jonru cities categories *Having a category specifically to list cities for a civilization is pointless due to the fact that there is near nothing that can be written in any of the articles for the cities. This can be seen by the fact that they contained only "'City name''' is the capital of civname." and there is a very high likelihood that nothing else useful can be written about each individual city. The obvious option then is to simply list them in some article, I figured the article named after the civilization which they belong to is the best option, so the text for some has been moved, and the rest need to be moved. Also, the Article named after the civilization should be categorized into the category of the name of the civilization, and not the nationality of the people who live there. So the categories like "Arabian" should be changed to "Arabia" and put in a category for all civilizations. These will likely later be changed to categories like category:Arabia (Civ4) because of the fact that there are likely a lot of articles (or could be) regarding Arabia from one particular game and not another. *category:Capitals contents in list *category:Cities - contents into separate lists *category:Arabian cities - contents in list: Arabia into category:Arabia *category:Arabians rename category:Arabia into category:Civilizations *category:Aztec cities - contents in list: Aztecs into category:Aztecs *'category:Aztecs into category:Civilizations *category:Babylonian cities - contents in list: Babyloni into category:Babylon *category:Babylonians rename category:Babylon into category:Civilizations *category:Chinese cities - contents in list: China into category:China *category:Chinese rename category:China into category:Civilizations *category:Egyptian cities - contents in list: Egypt into category:Egypt *category:Egyptians rename category:Egypt into category:Civilizations *category:English cities - contents in list: England into category:England *category:English rename category:England into category:Civilizations *category:French cities - contents in list: France into category:France *category:French rename category:France into category:Civilizations *category:German cities - contents in list: Germany into category:Germany *category:Germans rename category:Germany into category:Civilizations *category:Greek cities - contents in list: Greece into category:Greece *category:Greeks rename category:Greece into category:Civilizations *category:Indian cities - contents in list: India into category:India *category:Indians rename category:India into category:Civilizations *category:Persian cities - contents in list: Persia into category:Persia *category:Mongols rename category:Mongolia into category:Civilizations *category:Persians rename category:Persia into category:Civilizations *category:Roman cities - contents in list: Rome into category:Rome *category:Romans rename category:Rome into category:Civilizations *category:Russian cities - contents in list: Russia into category:Russia *category:Russians rename category:Russia into category:Civilizations *category:Spanish cities - contents in list: Spain into category:Spain *category:Spanish rename category:Spain into category:Civilizations *category:Zulu cities - contents in list: Zulu into category:Zulu *category:Zulus rename category:Zulu into category:Civilizations :I'm quite happy with the idea that we may eventually have categories with names like category:Arabia (Civ4) (which would be a subcategory of both Arabia and Civ4). However, please read and contribute to Forum:Nations - articles before going further with these. An example of what needs more discussion is the fact that Arabs are spread from Morocco to Doha, not confined to Arabia. And it is preferable for you not to insult the author of several carefully categorized stubs by saying a category for such articles is pointless because nothing much can be written about them. Plenty can be written about those cities, even if you can't think of anything to write about them. That doesn't prevent having them also listed under their civs as you propose. Robin Patterson 12:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::Upon looking something up, I found that the actual civ name (in civ4) was "Arabs" so, I'll be making an Arabs (Civ4) at the very least to clarify that. If there wasn't an "official" name in the previous games then it should stay at whatever seems most likely until then for those (having them categorized into {civilizations). Well considering this is a wiki involving civilization and considering none of the civ games (afaik) said anything about particular cities it would seem like whatever can be written about them wouldn't belong here, and at best could be given a link to a wikipedia article when the cities are listed. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) ::I think that he was referring to game-wise. There is not much about a city in game terms to write about, except perhaps historically where wonders were built. Those games that classify the cities, do so by civilization so an entry for each civ listing the cities used would seem appropriate. Finally I would prefer to use Arabia/Civ4 for an article name rather than Arabia (Civ4) as the former will put an automatic link back to the primary Arabia, for categories it is less important. Dcorrin 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::: In most wikis I've seen (including WP), it's common practice to disambiguate pages through parentheses, and subpages are very rarely used on the main namespace. I just don't see the large value in linking back to the main article Arabs automatically from the civ4 specific one. Especially since you'll likely only get to that civ4 specific arabs article by going through civ4 articles (or by following disambiguation links on Arabs, overall it's not a big deal but something we should definitly keep consistent. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::::I tend to agree with Mason on that point. Subpages can be nuisances. Robin Patterson 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC) ::(Aside) Also, it's hardly "insulting" when I give a rationale for why I called it pointless. I called it pointless because little could be written about them, and so if someone is insulted by me saying that their stub wouldn't likely grow into a full article then they have to re-read the licensing of this wiki to realize that it's public and it's not an article they "own". So I think it's irrelevant who wrote it. :::Your "rationale" was based on your opinion, not on fact, and included the implication that neither the original author (a former professional editor who has written thousands of words about cities) nor anyone else could write much about those cities. That verges on insulting; nothing to do with ownership. '''You were the person who brought the word "insulting" into this discussion' by applying it to my interim top heading that included the totally factual descriptive words "...by new member"!! Enough real or imagined insults, eh? We have a potentially great cooperative Project here, which we may turn into a Wonder! (puns intended) Robin Patterson 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) ::Anyways... if there is going to be a cat for each civs cities with articles with things written in them, the cats will all need to be distinguished with which game they belong to, such as cat:Arabian cities (civ1). -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 14:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Units Categorize these into a main category (which will then be put into category:Civilopedia *'category:Air units into category:Units *'category:Melee units into category:Units *'category:Mounted units into category:Units *'category:Naval units into category:Units *'category:Non-combat units into category:Units *'category:Non-military units into category:Units *'category:Unique units into category:Units :I think that was already partly in place; perfectly logical for those cats to be subcats of category:Units. Robin Patterson 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC) dupe category *category:Non-Combat units - contents to category:Non-combat units :Case is awkwark as one can reference the Non-combat article by tagging the word '''non-combat' as the first letter is auto capitalized in article lookups, but non-Combat or Non-Combat would look funny in regular text. Dcorrin 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::Agreed, that's why I suggested that. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 16:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::I agree 100%. If I had noticed "Non-Combat" I would probably have turned it into the standard "sentence case" on the spot unless I had been afraid of alienating a good contributor. Robin Patterson 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) renaming techs They are called technologies in Civ3 and Civ4, though I'm not completely sure if they were in Civ2, perhaps not. Because this wiki should not only cater to both advances from civ1 and civ2 and tech categories from civ3 and civ4 but also all the mods of civ3 and 4 which are very numerous, it seemed more reasonable to name it techs, and put it in civilopedia. *'category:Advances rename category:Technologies into category:Civilopedia' :Definitely "Advances" in Civ and Civ2, but the Technologies cat is fine for them. Robin Patterson 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::When making other cats, I put them in Technology cats specific to those games, but will change them to Advances. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) leaders If it's referring to civ leaders, then a shorter name would be more convenient. *'category:Civilization leaders rename category:Leaders into category:Civilopedia' :Fine. Robin Patterson 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) game concepts Per the civilopedia in Civ4, they refer to "Game concepts" again, civ4 mods would refer to concepts, not elements as well. *'category:Game elements rename category:Game concepts into category:Civilopedia' :I don't mind that. Robin Patterson 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) units Using parenthesis and shorter names to make these categories easier to use and view (especially when lists get much longer), acronyms don't need to be what they are, they were just quick ideas and can easily be changed. *category:Units in Civilization rename category:Units (Civ1) into category:Units *category:Units in Civilization II rename category:Units (Civ2) into category:Units *category:Units in Civilization III rename category:Units (Civ3) into category:Units *category:Units in Civilization III: Conquests rename category:Units (Conquests) into category:Units *category:Units in Civilization III: Play the World rename category:Units (PtW) into category:Units *category:Units in Civilization IV rename category:Units (Civ4) into category:Units *category:Units in Civilization IV: Warlords rename category:Units (Warlords) into category:Units *category:Units in Freeciv rename category:Units (Freeciv) into category:Units *category:Units in Test of Time rename category:Units (ToT) into category:Units *category:Units in Test of Time Fantasy rename category:Units (ToT Fantasy) into category:Units *'category:Civilization III Unique units into category:Units (Civ3) :Seems like a lot of work for very little benefit (partly because most lists have one line per item, no matter how short it is) but we can talk further on that. Robin Patterson 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::Well, the key is also to have consistency, if :cat:game concepts (civ4) is to exist, it wouldn't be consistent to have :cat:units in civilization IV. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::: Less work for the same degree of consistency would be to follow the current style for new additions. Robin Patterson 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) :I don't like removing the roman number from items such as Warlords, as it can be difficult to remember if Warlords was a Civ III or Civ IV expansion. Dcorrin 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::Really since there is an article and category for civ4:warlords (Civilization IV:Warlords and category:Civilization IV:Warlords) though I think putting category:Units (Warlords) would work fine, as it wouldn't require anyone to know which game warlords was a part of in order to write the title, but the fact that that category would be in category:Units (Civ4) would make that more clear or it could be explicitly listed. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) wonders Above, plus in Civ4 Projects were introduced they are different enough to be mentioned separatly but in general are similar, so they can be in the same category. *'category:Wonders rename category:Wonders and Projects into category:Civilopedia' :Fine. Robin Patterson 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) wonders in civ2 *'category:Wonders in Civilization II rename category:Wonders (Civ2) into [[:category:Wonders and Projects]] :No, nonsense; in Civ and Civ2 they are just wonders. No problem having them in a W&P parent category but they themselves do not include projects. Robin Patterson 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::Good point and when I made new categories after writing this I did just that. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) civ (original) original is a simpler shorter, and easier to use name then "original game" *category:Civilization (original game) rename category:Civilization (original) into category:Games :More work for very little gain. OK, I suppose, but if you are so keen on shortening why not "Civ original" or "Civ1"? Robin Patterson 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::It's little work really, and I put it in parenthasis to distinguish it from the parent cat (cat:civilization), and I didn't use the number 1 because that wasn't really it's name and to be accurate I wanted to use the real names. I used civ1 later on parenthetically to distinguish between cats about civ1 units and civ2 units because it seemed more consistent then putting original there. :::I would prefer to reference Civ I rather than Civ Original, just like Kings are not called I when they are the first, after the later rulers the texts refer to the ealrier ones as I Dcorrin 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::::If that's considered acceptable, then I'm completely fine with it. Anyone else want to comment? -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC) :::::I've only played Civ I and therefore filling out pages on it and not on the other Civs; I personally like Civ I better than Civ Original. Benciv 17:21, 9 March 2009 (PST) ::::::Seems we have "(Civ1)" in lots of category names, matching the others, so I'm inclined to go with that. However, I don't do very much here, and User:Mason11987 hasn't edited in the last 14 months. Any contributions to the rest of this forum would be welcome. I guess that you know you can use "Civ" as a link to the page for that game? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Civilopedia The civilopedia (which I know was in civ3 but might have been around earlier) organizes info easily in game, and it would seem reasonable for general information to be organized here in a similar way. *category:Buildings into category:Civilopedia *'category:Civilizations into category:Civilopedia *'category:Games into category:Civilopedia *'category:Resources into category:Civilopedia *'category:Terrains into category:Civilopedia *'category:Units into category:Civilopedia :I like that if it means those categories are to be subcategories of "Civilopedia". Robin Patterson 12:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Games Putting things into games *'category:Alpha Centauri into category:Games' *'category:Civilization II into category:Games *'category:Civilization III into category:Games *'category:Civilization III: Conquests into category:Games *'category:Civilization IV into category:Games :I like that if it means those categories are to be subcategories of "Games". Robin Patterson 12:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Guides Articles used to guide the player in playing the game *'category:Abbreviations into category:Guides *'category:Cheats into category:Guides :Well, those categories can be subcategories of "Guides", but how do you relate that to the standard Category:Help? Robin Patterson 12:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::the Help namespace and Category:Help like on most wikis, would be for topics for helping contributors write wiki articles, while Guides will be to help players play Civ. I wasn't completely sure on Abbreviations, but the intention was to have Guides work in that way. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC) :::Players who have not studied many wikis will not know that "Help" may not mean what it says. It should (as it does on well-developed wikis) include anything that can help any user. So I urge you to include guides etc as subcategories of Category:Help, which says itself "This category should contain every page that can help either a contributor or a reader". Robin Patterson 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) :::I don't recall any "cheats" so guides is a good idea. There is already a lot of information on the 'Net for Civ, so I was looking at this site as an opportunity to make side by side comparisons (which is not done elsewhere AFAIK). So the unit articles contain all versions side by side. I would also like to extend this to modding guidelines which also seem to have less representation. Dcorrin 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::::So Scout would contain info and comparisons of the scouts from all games and mods? That seems like an unrealistic goal, though it would fit perfectly fine into the current scheme. I was imagining that articles like Scount would be disambiguation pages to other Scout articles (like Scout (Civ3) and Scout (Civ4)) in which case we'd provide all the information which would be in the civilopedia for that particular unit (strength, requirements, abilities, promotions available, and info (like story, ect.). All of that wouldn't reasonably be able to fit in one page (especially when mods are taken into account), although it's possible we could do it by transclusion. I was hoping while there is a lot of info on the net about civ, this could be comprehensive, or attempt to be, and so if that's the ultimate goal, then there needs to be the assumption that it'll happen and so preparation for what issues we'd face (hence the idea of separate pages for each unit, from each game). -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) :::::You two can combine your ideas there. We already (as noted above) have pages that cover units that appear in more than one game, which is handy for comparison (notably as a guide to players who switch from one game to another); they need not be pruned to be mere disambig pages, but they can contain prominent links to the game-specific articles as soon as such articles are written. Best of both worlds. Robin Patterson 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) category:categories top level category (per wikipedia), if category:browse had the intention of being only top-level then that'd work too, but it didn't seem that way. *'category:Civilization into category:browse :"Browse" is the standard top-level for Wikia. Please leave it alone. It is certainly meant to be the top one. Please explain "it didn't seem that way" and I'll fix whatever else looked as if it might be trying to be top. I didn't mind you changing "Civilization" to "Games", and if that should be under "Civilopedia" that's OK too - you will notice that I put the latter under Browse, listed first. Robin Patterson 12:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC) :: Browse it is then. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Conclusion Other than the above, I don't imagine I'll be changing much of any of the content that people have changed here, just setting up a further category structure by creating new categories and articles. I posted this because many of my changes were reverted upon inacting them. I wanted to create a civ4 specific wiki but I was told I had to work into this one and so I attempted to move around some stuff to suit a wider audience which would include separate categories for civs and everything else for each game and mod. Also, I find it irrelevant and a little insulting that this was set up for me with the title "...by new member", shouldn't that be irrelevent? Especially considering everything here is under the GNU FDL so it's not like anyone owns it. Shouldn't the wikipedia policy of being bold be encouraged here too? even to "new" people. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 06:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I'm not going to continue with this until someone comments on it (so that I don't get reverted again), but I'm going to set up other categories. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Comments - Jonru Looks like a fairly major rearrangement. I'm not in charge here or anything, you just happened to see me do a few edits - i'm by no means regular. What you have seems to be a fairly sound and comprehensive list of categories we can use. Here we go then: ;Cities :I agree that it is a bit silly to create a stub for every city in the game. A list therefore is the correct way to go, though whether it should be separate (eg Persian cities) or merged into Persia i'm not sure on. If we have no information on them or don't care to add it, then stick it in a table in Persia by all means. Categorising into Category: Arabia I think is sufficient for now but I wouldn't agree to Category: Arabia (Civ4) until we have sufficient reason to do this. After this rearrangement I think we should adopt a policy of reactive categorisation (aka make them when we need them) rather than creating them and hoping they will be used. -- User:Junro ::Well, I'm going to start pasting information regarding the Civ4 civs come next week, and much of that information will include guides and other articles relating only to the Civ4 version of that civilization. So it will be necessary. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ;Units :I agree, simple and easy, little change. ;Renaming :From what I can see its just to shorten names, which is good, and as long as we have a way of explaining the shortened names to people easily then I'd support this. Also wonders and projects sounds like a good idea. Also Civ (Original Game) into Civ (Original) would be nice. ;Civiliopedia :It was around in civ 1 so is useable ;Games :Sounds good, easy to use ;Guides :Also good, simple to use ;Category:Categories :This is an admin decision though I don't think it matters so much? So I support this as long as others do (aka admins).--Jonru 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ;Cities :I simply made the idea beforehand because it is far easier to move categories around when you have ~200 articles then when you have thousands (and I know, I've done it before >_>). But if we make sure to distinguish between games when there needs to be a difference, then it should be fine. Also, traditionally, admins don't have any authority on content, nor on categorization. Those areas are left to "being bold" and also to collaboration when there is a problem. The purpose of admins is to facilitate in deletions, moves that can't be done normally, and vandalism, that's it, at least traditionally. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 14:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Looking towards 2010 The move to the shorter names using parentheses is well under way. I've used page moves and redirects here and there, including . — Robin Patterson (Talk) 14:22, December 26, 2009 (UTC)